State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 163
Ohio2017Background:
- In 2006 Michael Clay’s eight‑month‑old daughter died of blunt‑force head trauma; Clay was convicted of murder and is incarcerated.
- In 2015 while imprisoned Clay requested from the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner (ME) the full autopsy file (x‑rays, autopsy photos, reports, death certificate), citing R.C. 313.10 and R.C. 149.43.
- The ME produced some documents but withheld others and said some records required subpoena or could be obtained elsewhere (death certificate through city vital records).
- Clay filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Eighth District relying solely on R.C. 313.10(C)(1) as next‑of‑kin to compel production; the court of appeals issued a writ ordering production.
- The ME appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court arguing R.C. 313.10 must be read in pari materia with the Public Records Act (R.C. 149.43), which limits incarcerated persons’ access to records.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: it held R.C. 313.10(C)(1) is plain and unambiguous and requires the coroner to provide the full and complete coroner’s records to a next of kin who makes a written request, even if the next of kin is incarcerated for causing the death.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clay) | Defendant's Argument (ME) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 313.10(C)(1) give a next of kin (Clay) a right to full coroner records? | R.C. 313.10(C)(1) unambiguously grants next‑of‑kin a copy of the full and complete coroner records on written request. | N/A (ME disputed via other statutory interaction) | Held: Yes; statute’s mandatory “shall” creates a clear right/duty. |
| Must R.C. 313.10 be read in pari materia with R.C. 149.43 so that incarcerated requestors are restricted by R.C. 149.43(B)(8)? | N/A (Clay relied on 313.10 alone) | R.C. 149.43(B)(8) limits incarcerated persons’ access to public records and should restrict production. | Held: No; in pari materia not applied because 313.10(C)(1) is plain and unambiguous and ambiguity is prerequisite for in pari materia. |
| Can the ME rely on R.C.149.43(B)(8) to deny records to a next‑of‑kin who caused the death? | Clay: R.C. 313.10 controls; no cross‑reference to R.C.149.43 in §(C)(1). | ME: R.C.149.43(B)(8) bars incarcerated persons from obtaining records about criminal investigations without judicial approval. | Held: No; R.C. 313.10(C)(1) contains no limiting language and imposes a mandatory duty to provide records to next of kin. |
| Should the court invoke the absurd‑result exception or harmonize statutes to avoid absurd consequences? | N/A (Clay argued plain text controls) | ME: Harmonizing avoids absurd result of giving murderer autopsy photos while denying other public records. | Held: Court declined to apply absurdity/reharmonization because the plain language is unambiguous; if legislature intended limits it must amend statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears v. Weimer, 55 N.E.2d 413 (recognizing that unambiguous statutes are applied, not construed)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (standards for mandamus relief and burden of proof)
- Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Levin, 882 N.E.2d 400 (discussing absurdity exception in statutory construction)
- State v. White, 29 N.E.3d 939 (considering interplay of statutes to avoid unjust or unreasonable applications)
- Natl. Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (recognizing privacy concerns where criminals seek victim autopsy materials)